Araştırma Makalesi
Yıl 2012,
Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 118 - 136, 26.06.2012
Öz
The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of elementary science
teachers’ understandings of the nature of science as they were taught with an explicit approach. Qualitative
research methodologies were used to design the study. Data collection took place during the “Science
Teaching Methods” course. Twenty-nine preservice elementary science teachers participated in the study.
During the first five weeks of the course Nature of Science (NOS) activities developed by Lederman and
Abd-el-Khalick (1998) were administered by the first researcher. Classroom discussions were held after
each activity to determine and develop preservice elementary science teachers’ perception of the nature of
science. The participants’ perceptions of the NOS were evaluated with Views of Nature of Science
Questionnaire form C (VNOS-C) before and after the intervention. Data was analyzed basing on the
interpretivist approach. Results of the study indicated that the majority of the participants held naive views
of the targeted NOS aspects at the beginning of the study. Postintervention assessments showed that the
participants made substantial gains in their views of some of the targeted aspects of NOS. More substantial
gains were evident in the aspects of the subjective, and social and cultural NOS. Less substantial gains were
evident in the subject of the difference between the structure and function of scientific theories and laws.
Anahtar Kelimeler
nature of science preservice science teacher explicit approach
Kaynakça
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University, Oregon. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 7 134 Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (16), 2161–2184. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (7), 673-699. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701. Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. D. (2001). “That’s what scientists have to do”: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1095-1109. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487. Aguirere, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (2), 213–233. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. M. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581. Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401–415. Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52, 358–363. Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366–376. Cobern, W. W. (1989). A comparative analysis of NOS profiles on Nigerian and American preservice, secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 533- 541. Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785–802. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programmes. Science & Education, 16, 725-749. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. NY: Teachers College Press. 135 Erdoğan, R., Çakıroğlu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2007). Investigating the Turkish preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science. In C. V. Sunal, K. Mutua (Ed.), Research on Education in Africa, The Caribbean and the Middle East, (pp. 273-285). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawing. School Science & Mathematics, 102(7):335–345. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133. Jordan, R., & Duncan, R. G. (2009). Student teachers’ images of science in ecology and genetics. Educational Research, 43 (2), 63-69. Kang,S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 551-578. King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers' knowledge of and attitude toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75 (1), 135-141. Klopfer, L., (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87-95. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (p.83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595-615. Lin H. S., & Chen C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(9), 773– 792. Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91, 822–839. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. Routledge, New York-London. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. (p. 41–52).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.).(1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new materials. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (4), 384–403. 136 Moss, D. M., Abrams, E.D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8):771–790. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core: A guide for curriculum designers. Washington, DC: NSTA. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking? In: G. Welford, J. Osborne & P. Scott (Eds.). Research in Science Education in Europe (p. 283-295). London: Falmer Press. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 25-32. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education,77, 261-278. Sadler, T. (2006). ‘‘I won’t last three weeks’’: Preservice science teachers reflect on their studentteaching experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–241. Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205-236. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. S. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. Scharmann, L. C., & Smith, M. U. (2001). Further thoughts on defining versus describing the nature of science: A response to Niaz. Science Education, 85(6), 691– 693. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, & umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27-41. Simsek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2006). Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Suppe, F. (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, tecahing and learning. International Journal of Science Eduacation, 28(5), 919-944. Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effect of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.
Yıl 2012,
Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 118 - 136, 26.06.2012
Öz
Bu çalışmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin algılarını doğrudan yaklaşım yöntemine dayalı bir öğretim süresince incelemektir. Araştırmanın desenlenmesinde nitel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma için veri toplama süreci Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Programındaki Öğretim Yöntem ve Teknikleri-I dersi kapsamında gerçekleşmiştir. Araştırmaya 29 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Bahsi geçen dersin ilk beş haftalık süresince Lederman ve Abd-elKhalick (1998) tarafından geliştirilmiş Bilimin Doğası (Nature of Science-NOS) etkinlikleri birinci araştırmacı tarafından uygulanmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin algılarını tespit etmek ve geliştirmek üzere her etkinlikten sonra sınıf içi tartışmalar yürütülmüştür. Öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin algıları öğretim sürecinin başında ve sonunda Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire-C (VNOS-C) ile değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler yorumlayıcı yaklaşıma göre analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları uygulanan öğretim sürecinin başında fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çoğunun bilimin doğasına ilişkin algılarının yetersiz olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğretim sürecinin sonuda ise öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin geliştirilmesi hedeflenen algılarında gelişme olduğu gözlenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının en fazla gelişme gösterdikleri alanlar bilimin öznel yapısı ve sosyo-kültürel doğası olmuştur. Bilimsel teoriler ve kanunlar arasındaki fark ise öğretmen adayları tarafından en az düzeyde algılanan konudur
Anahtar Kelimeler
bilimin doğası fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları doğrudan yaklaşım
Kaynakça
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University, Oregon. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 7 134 Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (16), 2161–2184. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (7), 673-699. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701. Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. D. (2001). “That’s what scientists have to do”: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1095-1109. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487. Aguirere, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (2), 213–233. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. M. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581. Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401–415. Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52, 358–363. Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366–376. Cobern, W. W. (1989). A comparative analysis of NOS profiles on Nigerian and American preservice, secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 533- 541. Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785–802. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programmes. Science & Education, 16, 725-749. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. NY: Teachers College Press. 135 Erdoğan, R., Çakıroğlu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2007). Investigating the Turkish preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science. In C. V. Sunal, K. Mutua (Ed.), Research on Education in Africa, The Caribbean and the Middle East, (pp. 273-285). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawing. School Science & Mathematics, 102(7):335–345. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133. Jordan, R., & Duncan, R. G. (2009). Student teachers’ images of science in ecology and genetics. Educational Research, 43 (2), 63-69. Kang,S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 551-578. King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers' knowledge of and attitude toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75 (1), 135-141. Klopfer, L., (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87-95. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (p.83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595-615. Lin H. S., & Chen C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(9), 773– 792. Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91, 822–839. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. Routledge, New York-London. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. (p. 41–52).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.).(1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new materials. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (4), 384–403. 136 Moss, D. M., Abrams, E.D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8):771–790. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core: A guide for curriculum designers. Washington, DC: NSTA. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking? In: G. Welford, J. Osborne & P. Scott (Eds.). Research in Science Education in Europe (p. 283-295). London: Falmer Press. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 25-32. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education,77, 261-278. Sadler, T. (2006). ‘‘I won’t last three weeks’’: Preservice science teachers reflect on their studentteaching experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–241. Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205-236. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. S. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. Scharmann, L. C., & Smith, M. U. (2001). Further thoughts on defining versus describing the nature of science: A response to Niaz. Science Education, 85(6), 691– 693. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, & umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27-41. Simsek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2006). Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Suppe, F. (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, tecahing and learning. International Journal of Science Eduacation, 28(5), 919-944. Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effect of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.
Toplam 1 adet kaynakça vardır.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 26 Haziran 2012 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2012 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1 |